Maryland Woman Fined $310 for Killing Police Officer

[Gunny]

Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Associated Press

ELLICOTT CITY, Md. — The Howard County State's Attorney's Office says a driver who struck and killed a county police officer last year has paid her traffic fines.

Prosecutors say Stephanie Grissom of Columbia paid $310 in fines for speeding and negligent driving. She also received three points on her driving record.

In March, a county grand jury declined to indict Grissom on automobile manslaughter charges.

more ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354402,00.html

 

[Dogger]

As tragic as this story is, the facts which Faux News chose to omit provide context for the grand jury's decision not to indict.

From No Indictment In Death Of Howard Police

Corporal Wheeler was conducting speed enforcement using a technique called "step-out" the day of the crash.

Wheeler had stepped out into Route 32 and was flagging Grissom when she hit him going 71 miles per hour.

"As she approached Scott, at some point she did see him and moved and took some evasion action perhaps to not strike him," said McMahon.

Apparently, the grand jury did not want the ruin the life of a young woman for hitting a cop who stepped into high-speed traffic.

 

[Dogger]

One cop opines on the safety of the step-out technique:

Posted by EasternShore on Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:05 AM Pacific

This is a shear tragedy and an unfortunate accident. I currently serve as a sworn police officer in the State of Maryland and work for a police agency on the eastern shore. I conduct traffic enforcement on a daily basis and work for the most part with the state police. I see troopers standing along side the roadway where the speed limit is 55 mph and vehicles travel in excess of 70 plus. The trooper then jumps out in the middle of the road, in front of the vehicle who is doing like mach 5 and flags down the speeding motorist. These officers need to have there heads examined on why they would conduct traffic in this very dangerous and unsafe way. I would never do that and no officer should either. Don't be so lazy people. Stop the car the old fashion way. Put on your emergency equipment, signal pull over and get out of your car. I hope law enforcement agencies rethink this crazy practice and prohibit it.

Sincerely,
Deputy Sheriff (Patrol officer)
Maryland

 

[Diuretic]

This is why speed cameras are needed. At those speeds it's criminally negligent to expect a police officer to try and flag down a motorist from the side of the road at any speed let alone in an area where someone is travelling at 60 mph or more. Fair enough if you're pursuing them and either timing them or using a mobile speed detection device, then you can wave them over and get out when the vehicle has stopped.

 

[Dogger]

Almost as surprised as I'm NOT that someone would post this pointless garbage and try to politicize it.

Given this comment of yours on another thread, what was your point in starting this thread?

 

[Gunny]

Given this comment of yours on another thread, what was your point in starting this thread?

Ummm ... it was an article in the news?

Didn't know anyone would want to make some partisan bullshit out of it.

However, I disagree with the jury's decision. Had she not been violating the law to begin with, the cop would not have felt the need to attempt to stop her.

See how easy that works?

 

[Dogger]

Ummm ... it was an article in the news?

Didn't know anyone would want to make some partisan bullshit out of it.

However, I disagree with the jury's decision. Had she not been violating the law to begin with, the cop would not have felt the need to attempt to stop her.

See how easy that works?

You quoted the story together with the bullshit headline that Faux News put on it. Surely there was a purpose.

The grand jury was exactly correct. Intent to violate the speeding law does not equal intent to commit homicide. As another cop pointed out, all the officer had to do was get in his car and pull her over. Or he could have worked in tandem with another cop, and radioed ahead. His decision to step in front of a speeding car does not escalate a traffic offense into a felony and should not ruin the life of a young woman.

 

[Larkinn]

Ummm ... it was an article in the news?

Didn't know anyone would want to make some partisan bullshit out of it.

However, I disagree with the jury's decision. Had she not been violating the law to begin with, the cop would not have felt the need to attempt to stop her.

See how easy that works?

Awesome. The new version of the felony murder law is now downgraded to a citation murder law. Amazing idea.

 

[indago]

Now, doesn't it look like the cop had suicidal tendencies?

 

[Dogger]

Now, doesn't it look like the cop had suicidal tendencies?

I wouldn't go there myself. He was doing a dangerous job in an extremely dangerous manner dictated by a really bad policy. What happened to him was a tragedy, and I think the grand jury was simply refusing to compound the tragedy by branding the driver as a felon.

 

[Gungnir]

You quoted the story together with the bullshit headline that Faux News put on it. Surely there was a purpose.

The grand jury was exactly correct. Intent to violate the speeding law does not equal intent to commit homicide. As another cop pointed out, all the officer had to do was get in his car and pull her over. Or he could have worked in tandem with another cop, and radioed ahead. His decision to step in front of a speeding car does not escalate a traffic offense into a felony and should not ruin the life of a young woman.

On another board there is a sig picture for one poster that reads approximately "FOX NEWS Hot steaming porno for Republicans."

 

[Gunny]

You quoted the story together with the bullshit headline that Faux News put on it. Surely there was a purpose.

The grand jury was exactly correct. Intent to violate the speeding law does not equal intent to commit homicide. As another cop pointed out, all the officer had to do was get in his car and pull her over. Or he could have worked in tandem with another cop, and radioed ahead. His decision to step in front of a speeding car does not escalate a traffic offense into a felony and should not ruin the life of a young woman.

I always us whatever headline the media outlet puts on the articles so folks such as yourself can't accuse me of trying to mislead anyone. Apparently though, because you take issue with the media outlet that doesn't apply.

Tell me, what EXACTLY is not factual in the header?

Then you can explain to us dumb, common folk, why in your legal opinion, that intent to violate drunk driving laws equates to vehicular manslaughter or worse, but intent to violate a different traffic law that produces the same result does not equate to vehicular manslaughter, at a minimum.

 

[Dogger]

Then you can explain to us dumb, common folk, why in your legal opinion, that intent to violate drunk driving laws equates to vehicular manslaughter or worse, but intent to violate a different traffic law that produces the same result does not equate to vehicular manslaughter, at a minimum.

It's a different level of culpability. If she had hit him while fleeing from a bank robbery, most states would treat that as felony murder. Same result plus higher culpability equals dramatically higher prison time.

Lawyers and other intelligent folk understand nuance and shades of gray.

 

[Gunny]

It's a different level of culpability. If she had hit him while fleeing from a bank robbery, most states would treat that as felony murder. Same result plus higher culpability equals dramatically higher prison time.

Lawyers and other intelligent folk understand nuance and shades of gray.

That a fact? Sounds like some really fancy footwork to explain a double standard based on what is and is not pollitically correct.

 

[Larkinn]

That a fact? Sounds like some really fancy footwork to explain a double standard based on what is and is not pollitically correct.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. That bullshit label is just your way of trying to explain away things you don't like. There is a HUGE difference between drunken driving and speeding, hence the punishments are different for both the act AND for unintended results thay may occurr as a result of the act.

 

[Gunny]

It has nothing to do with political correctness. That bullshit label is just your way of trying to explain away things you don't like. There is a HUGE difference between drunken driving and speeding, hence the punishments are different for both the act AND for unintended results thay may occurr as a result of the act.

Odd, I don't recall dropping a nickel in you.

I don't a bullshit label to explain away anything that is obviously what it is. Speeding = intentionally violating driving laws. DWI/DUI = intentionally violating driving laws. Both present a danger to others. There is no HUGE difference. Only in your PC little mind. All you do is reinforce my argument.

If both result in the death of another person, you don't dismiss the charges on one and go for the throat on the other. It's a double standard. Period.

Now feel free to take your nasty little attitude off to bother someone else.

 

[Larkinn]

I don't a bullshit label to explain away anything that is obviously what it is.

So you provided one for fun then?

Speeding = intentionally violating driving laws. DWI/DUI = intentionally violating driving laws. Both present a danger to others. There is no HUGE difference. Only in your PC little mind. All you do is reinforce my argument.

The difference is that one is massively more dangerous than the other. The law recognizes that difference even if you are incapable of doing so.

If both result in the death of another person, you don't dismiss the charges on one and go for the throat on the other. It's a double standard. Period.

No its not. As I stated the degree of danger is vastly different and hence the punishments are different.

Now feel free to take your nasty little attitude off to bother someone else.

Look whose talking.

 

[Gunny]

So you provided one for fun then?



The difference is that one is massively more dangerous than the other. The law recognizes that difference even if you are incapable of doing so.



No its not. As I stated the degree of danger is vastly different and hence the punishments are different.



Look whose talking.

That one is massively more dangerous than other is a matter of opinion. I have yet to be put in danger by a drunk driver. Speeders endanger me and everyone else on the road all day long. From sheer volume alone speeders would represent the greater danger.

But I live in a city where I have to drive all over the place to get anywhere and traffic doesn't tool along at 5 mph top speed. IIRC, you live in NYC. DO you even drive?

Experience would be relative to one's opinion here.

 

[mattskramer]

Ummm ... it was an article in the news?

Didn't know anyone would want to make some partisan bullshit out of it.

However, I disagree with the jury's decision. Had she not been violating the law to begin with, the cop would not have felt the need to attempt to stop her.

See how easy that works?

I take Dogger’s side on this. Too much relevant information was left out of your piece. With information that Dogger included, a clearer picture is revealed. While I do not condone what she did, it provides more understanding. Circumstances should be taken into account.

 

[Larkinn]

That one is massively more dangerous than other is a matter of opinion. I have yet to be put in danger by a drunk driver.

Really? You know this how exactly?

Speeders endanger me and everyone else on the road all day long. From sheer volume alone speeders would represent the greater danger.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths

Since, from your claims, you've never been endangered by a DUI driver, but you have been endangered by speeding drivers (all day long), but yet 39% of all deaths are alcohol related, I'd say its pretty clear that alcohol poses the larger threat on an individual level, which is how we punish people. We don't punish people depending on how many other people do it, we do it based on the crime itself.

But I live in a city where I have to drive all over the place to get anywhere and traffic doesn't tool along at 5 mph top speed. IIRC, you live in NYC. DO you even drive?

Experience would be relative to one's opinion here.

I live in NYC now. I've only lived in the city for about a year. I was a delivery driver in undergrad, I ride motorcycles (or I used too), I've driven across the country several times, and I once drove from Cali to NY in 3 days. I have just a wee bit of experience driving as well I'd say.